TMC is an independent, primarily volunteer organization that relies on ad revenue to cover its operating costs. Please consider whitelisting TMC on your ad blocker and becoming a Supporting Member. For more info: Support TMC

Moderator Note: This thread started in the Investors Forum, discussing two shareholder resolutions up for vote at the annual meeting. Following the meeting, the thread continued on to debate the ethical and environmental impacts of Tesla's choice of interior materials. Given the shift in emphasis, the moderator team decided that the Energy, Environment, and Policy forum was a better location for this continuing discussion.
____________________________________________________

Dear Fellow Investors,

It is with some trepidation that we ask for your assistance in securing your "FOR" votes on 2015 TSLA Proposals Three and Four, but it must be done. In the past, forum "debate" on this subject has degraded to irrational, grade school-like ad hominem attacks; let's hope that's no longer the case.

Both proposals will be "presented" at the June 9th Annual Shareholder's Meeting, but Tesla has given us a full THREE minutes each; that's not much presentation. Frankly, it smacks of, "Our minds are made up, please don't bother us with the facts."

Furthermore, it's a mere formality at that point since the vast majority of the votes will have already been cast by June 9th, this despite the significant roadblocks to actually seeing the proposals. Thus, nearly all shareholders will see nothing more than the board recommendation to vote "AGAINST," and not see a single word from either proposal. (In our case, no hard copies of the Tesla Motors Annual Report were mailed, unless specifically requested. This was in direct contrast to previous years where the default option had hard copies of the annual reports mailed, unless specifically not asked for. We'll presume your experience this year was similar?)

Adding salt to the wound, Tesla's Board has stated what must be the Tesla equivalent of, "The dog ate my homework," as their reasoning for their "AGAINST" recommendation. Frankly, in light of the facts, that's remarkably "un-Tesla" as they are normally a fact- and logic-based organization.

Hence, our request: please review the proposals below and vote "FOR" both. The SEC limit of 500 words severely limits the number of facts that could be included in the proposals, but please see the hyperlinks below for more details.

At the end of the day, Tesla Motors exists to transition ground-based transportation from a high-GHG output problem that threatens all life on Earth to something that's sustainable. As Elon explained in March, the status quo is, "The dumbest experiment in history..." He's right.

In the past Elon has used the metaphor of a leaking lifeboat and a bucket. I'll use it again. If we're trying to bail water out of the lifeboat, why would anyone intentionally poke holes in the bailing bucket? Yet with arguably 80 or 90% of the Model S's sold today, that's exactly what Tesla is doing . . . .

And that is what's really insane.

Thanks for your support--we're going to need it!

Sincerely,

Mark and Elizabeth Peters

"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man."
--George Bernard Shaw

PROPOSAL THREESTOCKHOLDER PROPOSAL BY MR. MARK PETERSStockholder Proposal and Supporting StatementIn accordance with SEC rules, we have set forth below a stockholder proposal from Mark Peters, along with a supporting statement of the proponent. Mr. Peters has notified us that he is the beneficial owner of 1,540 shares of the Company’s common stock and intends to present the following proposal at the 2015 Annual Meeting. The stockholder proposal will be required to be voted upon at the 2015 Annual Meeting only if properly presented.Shareholder Proposal — Reduced Environmental ImpactTesla Motors (TM) was created, in part, to address the significant environmental impact inherent in fossil-fuel powered transportation. While the Company seeks environmentally sustainable solutions, TM has made choices which conflict with these goals.This proposal highlights the significant negative environmental impact of using animal-sourced products in TM’s products, and suggests TM minimize and then eliminate their use.Negative Environmental ImpactIn 2006 the UN Food and Agriculture Organization reported:With rising temperatures, rising sea levels, melting icecaps and glaciers, shifting ocean currents and weather patterns, climate change is the most serious challenge facing the human race.The livestock sector is a major player, responsible for 18 percent of greenhouse gas emissions measured in C02 equivalent. This is a higher share than transport.[ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/010/a0701e/a0701eOO.pdf]This has also been supported in other research and was highlighted in the 2014 documentary, Cowspiracy .Consumer Acceptance of AlternativesDaimler AG, an early TM investor, has demonstrated high customer acceptance of the comfort, appearance, and durability of non-animal sourced interiors. The non-profit Consumer Reports, which accepts no advertising and anonymously purchases their test vehicles, stated the following in reviewing the 2014 Mercedes-Benz E-Class:Expectations are high for a Mercedes interior and this one doesn’t disappoint. Almost every dashboard and door panel surface is covered with soft-touch materials. Swaths of wood encircle the interior and run down the center console. Lots of chrome bits liven up the cabin as does a fancy analog clock in the center dashboard. The faux leather perforated MB-Tex seats are convincing.[http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/mercedes-benz/e-class/sedan-e250-bluetec-4-cyl/road-test.htm]Their review of the 2015 C-Class was similar:Inside you’ll find the expected Mercedes upscale execution, with a high-quality feel to every surface, switch, and button, and nothing garish or flashy. The artificial-leather upholstery, called MB-Tex, is the most believable fake leather you’ll find anywhere, and honestly, it can pass for the real thing.

[http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/news/2014/08/all-new-2015-mercedes-benz-c-class-looks-to-be-a-luxurious- crowd-pleaser/index.htm]Audi, BMW, Lexus, Infiniti, among others, also offer non-animal interiors in many markets.Tesla Motors GuidanceGiven these facts, it is in both the shareholders’ and our planet’s best interests to eliminate the use of animal-sourced materials in TM’s products. This proposal encourages TM to consider establishing goals that:1. Reduce the use of animal-sourced materials by 5% in 2016, 30% in 2017, and 60% in 2018, with complete elimination by EOY 2019 (baseline: 2014); and,2. Cease the practice of penalizing customers who choose the most environmentally conscious, non-animal sourced interior choices, by EOY 2015. (Under current ordering protocols, if a leather interior is not ordered, Next-Generation seats, door panel, footwell and trunk lighting become unavailable or are downgraded.)ConclusionI ask for your support of this proposal because the evidence is overwhelming: GHG emissions from animal sources are a major threat. The elimination of animal-sourced materials from TM’s products will decrease the company’s environmental impact without penalty to our customers’ wants, needs or tastes. It is the right thing to do for TM, the planet, and all beings that live on it.

PROPOSAL FOURSTOCKHOLDER PROPOSAL BY MS. ELIZABETH FARRELL PETERSStockholder Proposal and Supporting StatementIn accordance with SEC rules, we have set forth below a stockholder proposal from Elizabeth Farrell Peters, along with a supporting statement of the proponent. Ms. Peters has notified us that she is the beneficial owner of 250 shares of the Company’s common stock and intends to present the following proposal at the 2015 Annual Meeting. The stockholder proposal will be required to be voted upon at the 2015 Annual Meeting only if properly presented.Proposal — Tesla Motors as a Cruelty-free BrandThe Model S is so far ahead of the industry that in Consumer Reports’ “Quick Take” video, with ~400k YouTube views, the evaluators at the non-profit stated:We’ve been testing cars at Consumer Reports for a very long time, but we’ve never seen anything quite like the Tesla Model S. This car performs better than anything we’ve ever tested before. Let me repeat that, not just the best electric car, but the best car.They concluded:But overall, this is a terrific car. And what’s really amazing, it’s from a small company in California that has only begun building cars, and it performs better than the entries from any other car company, even companies that have been around for over 100 years.TM should continue its ground-breaking, rule-shattering leadership by exploring the possibility of becoming the first cruelty-free, premium brand.Ethical / Moral ImplicationsIn the Forward of Why We Love Dogs, Eat Pigs, and Wear Cows: An Introduction to Carnism by Melanie Joy, PhD, John Robbins wrote:The result is that we have a system of industrialized animal food production, a system of factory farming, that is under no legal compunction not to torture the animals in its “care.” The standard operating procedures in the industry are not designed to be cruel. That is not their goal or their intent. They are designed to be cost effective. But if it turns out that it is cost effective to confine animals in conditions that actually resemble Auschwitz or Dachau, then that’s what will happen.And that’s what has happened.Most of the millions of cows and other animals whose skins are turned into leather endure the horrors of factory farming — extreme crowding and confinement, deprivation of food and water, and disease. Branding, tail-docking, dehorning, and castration are all commonly performed without painkillers. Animals are transported hundreds of miles to feedlots and slaughterhouses-where improper stunning means many are skinned while still alive.AlternativesCruelty-free materials are used by other brands: BMW’s SensaTec, Mercedes-Benz’s MB-Tex, Toyota’s SofTex, Lexus’ NuLuxe (and Infiniti’s equivalent), along with Alcantara and others.The benefits of these products extend beyond the ethical and moral to the practical and environmental. Lexus’ website reports that NuLuxe’s manufacturing generates 65% fewer CO2 emissions than other

synthetic leathers and no VOCs. “NuLuxe seating material offers more than just good looks and a supple texture. It weighs half as much as leather. Offering the fit and finish you’d expect in a Lexus, it’s available in multiple unique colors.”Toyota’s website states: “SofTex ® is a synthetic leather seat material designed for wear, easy cleaning and resisting spills. Soft to the touch, SofTex weighs about half as much as genuine leather. The way it’s made generates around 85% fewer CO2 emissions and 99% fewer Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) than conventional synthetic leather. It also does not include any animal-based material.”Tesla Motors GuidanceTo retain industry leadership, TM should consider becoming the first cruelty-free, premium brand.

OPPOSING STATEMENT OF THE BOARD TO PROPOSAL THREE AND PROPOSAL FOURThe Board of Directors has considered these proposals, each of which relates to a similar subject matter, and has determined that neither is in the best interests of the Company or its stockholders.Tesla’s mission when it was created more than a decade ago was the same as it is today: to accelerate the advent of sustainable transport by bringing compelling and increasingly affordable electric cars to market. This is why we are building the Gigafactory, expanding our production capacity at the Tesla Factory, and developing new electric vehicles.Achieving this mission requires that we prioritize our efforts. In some cases, this means using existing materials to meet consumer expectations, where exploring alternatives would impede or delay us. Ultimately, by focusing on our mission, we believe we will create the most possible good.T HE B OARD OF D IRECTORS R ECOMMENDS A V OTE AGAINST EACH OF P ROPOSAL T HREE ANDP ROPOSAL F OUR .

I applaud the effort and the intent but not offering leather (when everyone else does) could cripple sales. Right or wrong most people expect and demand leather in expensive cars. Tesla could do more to push the issue and encourage non-leather options but shouldn't eliminate leather at this time. They need to sell cars to survive.

I fully support your efforts! Excuse my ignorance, but where do I vote? I only have 280 shares, am I even eligible for voting? BTW proud funder of Cowspiracy on Kickstarter.

Edit: funder.. is that even a word?

Click to expand...

Thank you for your activism! So few bother to challenge the assumptions handed them by their parents; you actually fund efforts to inform others--rare and especially appreciated.

As for voting, please check with your broker as to where your voting links are to be found. They are frequently buried on their webpage somewhere, but as a shareholder, you "own" a potion of Tesla Motors and your vote counts.

I applaud the effort and the intent but not offering leather (when everyone else does) could cripple sales. Right or wrong most people expect and demand leather in expensive cars. Tesla could do more to push the issue and encourage non-leather options but shouldn't eliminate leather at this time. They need to sell cars to survive.

Click to expand...

Agreed. I think a middle ground would be to offer "Vegan" versions of the car, but I vaguely recall they did at some point (was it with Ms Munter?)

I applaud the effort and the intent but not offering leather (when everyone else does) could cripple sales. Right or wrong most people expect and demand leather in expensive cars. Tesla could do more to push the issue and encourage non-leather options but shouldn't eliminate leather at this time. They need to sell cars to survive.

Click to expand...

You posit: People will not buy Teslas without leather.

As I've stated to the other poster, I challenge you to visit your local MBZ, et al, dealer and ask to see their various NON-leather interiors.

I suggest that you cannot tell the difference, or, if you can, it's of no consequence.

We've been trained to think that the leather-LOOK is a more refined or rich interior. Fine. The same look and feel can be attained without the use leather, as demonstrated by the above brands . . . and they seem to be selling quite well.

My suggestion: Learn, Listen and Lead.

Review the links.

Visit your local MBZ/Infiniti/Lexus dealer.

Ask how you could not support these propositions, once you're aware of the facts.

One can't lead by simply taking assumptions from the past and making them the "facts" going forward, forever.

It's time for a change; Tesla should be leading that change and the fact that they're lagging conventional brands makes me angry and upset as it's grossly illogical and, frankly, truly insane.

I think hypocrisy is a too-strong characterization. I'm all for Tesla going there, but I want them on a sure path of survival first. Their overall goal will not be met if they go out of business first.

It's just a question of timing. It seems to me societal culture has been tending towards "We want it and we want it NOW!!!". As a shareholder I don't want Tesla to cut their nose off to spite their face. Patience, grasshopper.

(Subtle bullying of people who disagree with you will probably not get you the result you want.)

I happen to agree with you AND Duckjbe/dsm636/Ugliest1. We see this dilemma all the time - the politician I want to support will only make it through the primaries if s/he is willing to support the status quo and get the votes to advance to the actual ticket. But of course, if they support the status quo, then they're not the politician I want ...

Tesla Motors WILL be crippled by this, imo. Yes, you're right - if they really want to reduce emissions, then the proposal should be supported. But if you cripple them so that they do not thrive, then there is no TM and we've potentially shot ourselves in the foot.

It doesn't have to be 'all or nothing'. There is a middle ground - and perhaps this should be re-introduced at a point where Tesla can implement. And if it is reintroduced, then I hope whoever writes it puts actual measurable goals in it.

I read it, I didn't vote for it because it right now is 'fluff'. Nice goals, no way to actually measure if the company is successful or not. For instance, the proposal 'suggests TM minimize and then eliminate their use'. How do you measure that? There is no percentage by what to reduce, no limits on how much more money they should spend or how to measure if the replacement is equivalent or 'close enough'. There is no date by which to eliminate. It is not something that can be implemented.

Agreed. I think a middle ground would be to offer "Vegan" versions of the car, but I vaguely recall they did at some point (was it with Ms Munter?)

Click to expand...

Actually, that's IN Prop 3 . . . hence, my "ask" for your vote.

Back when Tesla cared about every single order, we cancelled our first MS order because, in those early days, one had to order the leather interior if one wanted heated seats. We wrote a strongly worded FedEx letter with plenty of enclosures supporting our position; many were the same as what was included with these proposals.

We received a call from Tesla within days advising that, "We've received dozens of complaints about that and you're right. We will be changing our website in the next few days; would you like to order a vegan Tesla?"

Obviously, we said, "Yes!" and thus began the long love affair with Tesla (we're now on our third MS, a stop-gap MS until our fourth is built, and we have a MX Reserved as well).

The problem is that their most environmentally aware customers are again being penalized for not wanting to dump more GHG's into the atmosphere and oceans: No Next-Gen Seats, No power liftgate, and a bunch of other things are not available.

Tesla has learned NOTHING in three years?

We have had it with the hypocrisy of Tesla punishing "high-information" customers, customers that know too much. Once you watch the documentary Cowspiracy, you too are likely to be a little upset with how little coverage this subject is getting.

This is our ONLY planet. It's being placed at great risk in "the dumbest experiment, ever," yet the greatest contributor to GHG's gasses is unknown to 90+% of the population at large?!?

Some things are simply jaw-droppingly dumb, and this fact has to be near the top of the list.

Same advice; please review the links and I urge you with all my effort to please vote your shares "FOR" the Propositions.

Thank you for your input and we'd like to hear back after you've done some research--there's a lot of time between now and June 9th.

The core mission of the company is to reduce GHG's. This is WHY Tesla Motors exists.

Click to expand...

I think you may have read the wrong brochure. Tesla's mission statement is "...to accelerate the advent of sustainable transport by bringing compelling mass market electric cars to market as soon as possible."

I don't know where you read those materials you mention are good for the environment, but as far as I know those are synthetic, vynil (plastic) based materials, meaning they are made of crude oil components. (Oh yeah, by the way, all other plastic in Tesla cars too). Also, you are free to skip the leather option when you order your Tesla.

In any case, I find pushing this topic so aggressively (has been discussed before, now it's being warmed up again) disturbing, almost like someone is trying to hijack the shareholder meeting to further their own agenda. For now, I am good with Tesla "only" revolutionizing the drivetrain powering our civilization for the last 100 years. If they only tackle changing all the other components used in cars once they have stopped working 24/7 just to make that happen, I can live with that.

(Subtle bullying of people who disagree with you will probably not get you the result you want.)

I happen to agree with you AND Duckjbe/dsm636/Ugliest1. We see this dilemma all the time - the politician I want to support will only make it through the primaries if s/he is willing to support the status quo and get the votes to advance to the actual ticket. But of course, if they support the status quo, then they're not the politician I want ...

Tesla Motors WILL be crippled by this, imo. Yes, you're right - if they really want to reduce emissions, then the proposal should be supported. But if you cripple them so that they do not thrive, then there is no TM and we've potentially shot ourselves in the foot.

It doesn't have to be 'all or nothing'. There is a middle ground - and perhaps this should be re-introduced at a point where Tesla can implement. And if it is reintroduced, then I hope whoever writes it puts actual measurable goals in it.

I read it, I didn't vote for it because it right now is 'fluff'. Nice goals, no way to actually measure if the company is successful or not. For instance, the proposal 'suggests TM minimize and then eliminate their use'. How do you measure that? There is no percentage by what to reduce, no limits on how much more money they should spend or how to measure if the replacement is equivalent or 'close enough'. There is no date by which to eliminate. It is not something that can be implemented.

It just feels like bullying perhaps? Why? Because we are pointing out many facts that conflict with beliefs we've accepted as facts for our entire lives. "Facts" our parents and teachers shared with us when we were children carry a huge amount of weight, emotional and otherwise.

Challenging those "facts" and deeply held beliefs often results in cognitive dissonance and can seem like a personal attack. It's not.

Again, I strongly encourage all to challenge their assumption re: "Can't sell Tesla without leather." If leather was required for a luxury car sale, then we'd be seeing thousands upon thousands of Lexus and MBZ's parked, unsold, at dealerships around the world.

That's not the case; why not find out why by visiting your local MBZ or Lexus dealer? I have, and I don't see the problem with non-leather interiors. Consumer Reports buys 40 or 50 cars a year. They don't see a problem either.

Given the risk to our one and only planet, I think it's a non-risk for Tesla and they need to lead, NOT follow, the other premium brands on this. To do otherwise is to be hypocritical, at best.

Lastly, I'm afraid you must have missed the details in Prop 3 above; it lists clear, specific goals (we especially want #2 to be implemented immediately as we're on an order "hold" until they do; things have actually gotten worse for high-information buyers since Tesla recently changed the order page):

Oh, and one more thing. By SEC definition, a shareholder proposal CANNOT be prescriptive. It can only suggest or guide, hence the language used to meet SEC requirements may not meet your desires, but it's all we've got.
********************************

Tesla Motors GuidanceGiven these facts, it is in both the shareholders’ and our planet’s best interests to eliminate the use of animal-sourced materials in TM’s products. This proposal encourages TM to consider establishing goals that:1. Reduce the use of animal-sourced materials by 5% in 2016, 30% in 2017, and 60% in 2018, with complete elimination by EOY 2019 (baseline: 2014); and,2. Cease the practice of penalizing customers who choose the most environmentally conscious, non-animal sourced interior choices, by EOY 2015. (Under current ordering protocols, if a leather interior is not ordered, Next-Generation seats, door panel, footwell and trunk lighting become unavailable or are downgraded.)ConclusionI ask for your support of this proposal because the evidence is overwhelming: GHG emissions from animal sources are a major threat. The elimination of animal-sourced materials from TM’s products will decrease the company’s environmental impact without penalty to our customers’ wants, needs or tastes. It is the right thing to do for TM, the planet, and all beings that live on it.

I applaud the effort and the intent but not offering leather (when everyone else does) could cripple sales. Right or wrong most people expect and demand leather in expensive cars. Tesla could do more to push the issue and encourage non-leather options but shouldn't eliminate leather at this time. They need to sell cars to survive.

Click to expand...

I'm very conflicted about this issue, and likewise agree with the intent of the proposals, but have concerns about negative effects on getting more Tesla EVs on the road.

First, my thoughts on voting "no": banishing leather from Tesla vehicles could possibly be a victory for reducing demand for leather products, but it would only be a small victory given Tesla's relatively low sales volume compared to the rest of the auto industry. Winning a small victory today could cost the company bigger victories down the line if Model S and X sales slump and cause delays on Gigafactory and Model 3 rollout.

The ultimate goal of Tesla is to be a critical piece of the transition from carbon fuels toward renewable energy by providing viable electric storage for general use (transport and grid). If a company ban on leather pushes back this goal, the delay may be far more costly in terms of overall greenhouse gas emissions and accelerated climate change than the GHG savings achieved by putting a small dent in the demand for cow hides.

Also, the primary driver of cowhide production IMO is meat consumption. If people didn't eat beef, I doubt that ranchers would raise cows (which require enormous amounts of feed, water, and other resources to raise) solely for hides. If one wants to make gains against GHG emissions by reducing cruel animal factory farming agriculture, then getting people to eat less or no meat is probably much more effective than a Tesla leather ban.

Yet another unanswered question is the environmental impact of polymer/plastic alternatives. Are their GHG cost of production lower? Do they use petroleum products and therefore indirectly support the oil industry and/or unsavory regimes that subsist on oil revenues?

Now, my thoughts on voting "yes": Not too long ago, a thirsty V8 gasoline engine was expected and demanded as the baseline engine for a pricy luxury sedan. Tesla changed that equation by offering an alternative that was demonstrably better than those V8s: a battery/motor combination that provides superior acceleration performance, traction control, and energy costs. The Tesla powertrain is almost ethereal in its silent but undeniably thrilling punch. Customers don't care that a Tesla doesn't have that V8, because the Tesla powertrain is better.

So today, luxury buyers often have an expectation that leather seating will be available or standard in an expensive car. Personally I think that leather seating sucks, because it is hot in summer, cold in winter, and ages badly if not treated (I see Acuras and Hondas with 10 yr old leather and the material looks cracked and otherwise awful). Perforated and active heated/cooled seats are implemented to get around these limitations. Still, leather can be burning hot on a sunny day before the active seats have had a chance to work.

In theory, if Tesla could bring to market a non-animal based seating material that was demonstrably better than leather in every way, and possibly exclusive too, that might be a viable way for the company to change expectations for seating in the same way that it changed expectations for powertrains.

So far, the only material I've seen that might be a viable alternative is a plant-based polymer biofabric used in limited form in some specialty Honda products (the FCX Clarity FCEV and Fit EV).

Personally I hope that Tesla makes some kind of move on the seating issue.

It just feels like bullying perhaps? Why? Because we are pointing out many facts that conflict with beliefs we've accepted as facts for our entire lives. "Facts" our parents and teachers shared with us when we were children carry a huge amount of weight, emotional and otherwise.

Challenging those "facts" and deeply held beliefs often results in cognitive dissonance and can seem like a personal attack. It's not.

Click to expand...

Actually, I didn't feel like it was a personal attack. I DO feel your word choices and phrasing when replying to others is deliberate & pretty much telling people 'if you don't believe what I believe then you're not enlightened like I am'. It doesn't encourage real discussion when you elevate yourself to a pedestal. It's like the high-school version of the grade-school attacks that you say you don't like.

Again, I strongly encourage all to challenge their assumption re: "Can't sell Tesla without leather." If leather was required for a luxury car sale, then we'd be seeing thousands upon thousands of Lexus and MBZ's parked, unsold, at dealerships around the world.

Click to expand...

I'm didn't state that, nor did many people disagreeing with you. Is it just leather you're talking about? Do you really believe that using a byproduct freely available will be less of an impact than the manufacturing process used to make the replacement (I don't know, but I suspect the replacement has a great impact on the environment).

Do we eliminate materials that require the use of animal byproducts to produce those materials? What about how transported.

Eliminating leather is a 'feel good' solution, but doesn't actually address any problem. What WILL (imo) is if more people become vegetarian, the availability of leather as a material is constrained, the price of the leather goes up, & as a consequence 'for business reasons', alternative materials are sought.

I think you may have read the wrong brochure. Tesla's mission statement is "...to accelerate the advent of sustainable transport by bringing compelling mass market electric cars to market as soon as possible."

I don't know where you read those materials you mention are good for the environment, but as far as I know those are synthetic, vynil (plastic) based materials, meaning they are made of crude oil components. (Oh yeah, by the way, all other plastic in Tesla cars too). Also, you are free to skip the leather option when you order your Tesla.

In any case, I find pushing this topic so aggressively (has been discussed before, now it's being warmed up again) disturbing, almost like someone is trying to hijack the shareholder meeting to further their own agenda. For now, I am good with Tesla "only" revolutionizing the drivetrain powering our civilization for the last 100 years. If they only tackle changing all the other components used in cars once they have stopped working 24/7 just to make that happen, I can live with that.

Click to expand...

Mr. DoubleB,

Please be aware there are deeper arguments at play here, and Tesla "corporate" has to "dumb it down" a bit.

Elon Musk is not as well silenced. I'd encourage you to listen/watch any of the dozens and dozens of interviews with Elon Musk on why he's poured so much money, blood, sweat and tears into Tesla; this link is posted above--perhaps you might read the text and listen to the interview to fully understand why Tesla exists?

Second, using oil and associated products in a Tesla interior is MILES away from burning them when it comes to GHG emissions. (And I'd be thrilled if they'd make progress there, but let's start with the low-hanging fruit first since this is far higher impact.)

Third, even some of the smartest guys in the room can have an asteroid-sized blind spot. Yes, even Elon Musk. I can only speculate that his staff "filters" the vast majority of things that are sent to him, to include a DVD copy of Cowspiracy. This would also apply to the other Tesla Board members as they've each been sent a copy too. I guess when one reaches "Uber-level" wealth it's remarkable how well isolated one can become? I cannot accept that in their 40's and 50's they've already reached an age of, "My mind is made up; don't bother me with the facts."

Because of the complete lack of success via conventional avenues (after three years!), we've been forced to step it up. So we did.

It just feels like bullying perhaps? Why? Because we are pointing out many facts that conflict with beliefs we've accepted as facts for our entire lives. "Facts" our parents and teachers shared with us when we were children carry a huge amount of weight, emotional and otherwise.

Challenging those "facts" and deeply held beliefs often results in cognitive dissonance and can seem like a personal attack. It's not.

Click to expand...

I would agree that this is not bullying, but it is a mental murder of sorts.

People's sense of self is wrapped up in deeply held beliefs and values. Some people are at their core adaptable and can easily adjust to new realties when new information come to light.

Others are fundamentally immutable in their core firmware, which prioritizes existing command hierarchy and traditional values. Destroying those values and upending the hierarchy destroys the core of that person's self, as surely as a Hellfire missile fired from a Predator drone reduces a victim to a smear of ash on the ground. I think that to such people, the truth is often mindkill.

I would agree that this is not bullying, but it is a mental murder of sorts.

People's sense of self is wrapped up in deeply held beliefs and values. Some people are at their core adaptable and can easily adjust to new realties when new information come to light.

Others are fundamentally immutable in their core firmware, which prioritizes existing command hierarchy and traditional values. Destroying those values and upending the hierarchy destroys the core of that person's self, as surely as a Hellfire missile fired from a Predator drone reduces a victim to a smear of ash on the ground. I think that to such people, the truth is often mindkill.

Click to expand...

Actually I was referring to the word and phrasing choices that were putdowns of other posters. That tends to stifle conversation.

I would agree that this is not bullying, but it is a mental murder of sorts.

People's sense of self is wrapped up in deeply held beliefs and values. Some people are at their core adaptable and can easily adjust to new realties when new information come to light.

Others are fundamentally immutable in their core firmware, which prioritizes existing command hierarchy and traditional values. Destroying those values and upending the hierarchy destroys the core of that person's self, as surely as a Hellfire missile fired from a Predator drone reduces a victim to a smear of ash on the ground. I think that to such people, the truth is often mindkill.

Forcing consumers to choose buying non-leather seating surfaces or buying a different manufacturer doesn't make sense for the company. Instead, Tesla Motors should develop or source a high-quality leather replacement surface like the ones listed above (MB-Tex was in my last car and it was fantastic!) and show the benefits side by side. Let the consumer decide by voting with their dollars.

I know the MB-Tex in my old car was 6 years old, and never received any kind of special treatment. In fact, it was abused by car seats and things. If you put that 6 year old seating surface next to a brand new one at the dealership, you couldn't tell the difference. I would choose the MB-Tex over leather every time, but not because of animal rights reasons.

I also agree that true Vegan versions need to be easily ordered. That can be done with a simple check box that appears when you select non-leather seating.

Meta

Do you value your experience at TMC? Consider becoming a Supporting Member of Tesla Motors Club. As a thank you for your contribution, you'll get nearly no ads in the Community and Groups sections. Additional perks are available depending on the level of contribution. Please visit the Account Upgrades page for more details.